I've been thinking more about this thread and my concerns about this draft. I
was originally looking for the draft to have advice for the expert review team
that gave them guidance on what the IETF thought was all right to approve or
not approve. It's become clear that this draft does not have that advice and is
not likely to get it in the very short term. This BCP will empower the expert
reviewer to reject or approve just about any request. Appeals are not the best
way to balance putting that power because they are incredibly corrosive and
time consuming to everyone involved. I think this thread somewhat suggests an
alternative approach for a check and balance.
What do people think of the idea of: for all ports requests, the request and
the expert reviewer reposes including reason for accepting or rejecting them
need to be posted to a public email list. This seems like a simple way to help
mitigate this issue and it will help educate people writing a port request to
know what types of issues they need to address and what would be appropriate or
not.
Pros & cons of this idea?
On Feb 8, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
I don't see that "public identity" (of expert reviewers) is required for
"interactive discussion".
Or would anonymous interaction fail a Turing test of some kind?
Public identity is required for reviewer accountability. It is easy to
imagine how withholding registration of some required numbers may delay a
competitor's products. The best protection against shade is sunlight.
-- Christian Huitema
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf